Condemn or Approve (pt 2)

[Hope]

Thought I'd put a bit of balance into the polling system.  Thought I'd add the third option for objectivity's sake.

[Sassy]

I am not here to judge the actions of God in the bible.
Jesus Christ shows us the will of God and what he wants for mankind.
I believe that it is about seeing the bigger picture and knowing God has worked for the good of all mankind.
No one wants a world full of murderers, rapist, child-abusers. Nonetheless we have them. But thank God they won't be with
us forever and he has the perfect way to separate the evil and the good.


I believe God wants a better life and world for us. We have to trust him and live in that reality.

[jeremyp]

I put "other" because the Bible god is fiction and deserving of condemnation in much the same way as Sauron.

[Khatru]

I also voted other because I don't believe the Bible god, nor indeed, any of the other gods that people claim to worship actually exist.

I see them only as creations of man -  gods of the gaps.

[floo]

I am more that happy to judge the deity in the Bible assuming it exists and the deeds attributed to it had any veracity! They are evil! 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

The God of the OT, Tory.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Dear Floo,

The God of the OT, Tory.

Gonnagle.

Is the god of the NT any better?

[Leonard James]

Is the god of the NT any better?

Only if he's a Liberal now. 

[Brownie]

I had to vote ''other'' because of course I approve of the actions you quote but you simply asked if I approved or disapproved of the Bible God's actions and that includes other things.  A lot depends on how literally one takes the Old Testament writings, or if you believe them to be the words of particular Jewish tribes, in which case other tribes may say something different.  Certainly their experiences of God would vary. Sorry that isn't very clear, I know what I mean (I hope others get my drift).

[Hope]

I've enjoyed the responses, and will simply quote part of a line from a Khatru post on a different thread -

What I'm getting ...

are not very subtle evasions. 

Anything but answer the question.

As Humph pointed out in Khat's original 'Condemn or Approve' thread, the initial proposition was so skewed and misrepresentative of God's actions as a whole, as to make the whole poll exercise a straw man thread.  I was interested to see whether Khat and others would fall into the very trap that he had tried to set over there - and, by bringing in other details that aren't in the initial proposition, he and several others have done precisely that.  In fact, several seem to be suggesting that they regard the traits listed here as undesirable.

As such, this thread has succeeded in its purpose.

[jeremyp]

the initial proposition was so skewed and misrepresentative of God's actions as a whole

But so is your description in this thread.

The Biblical god did some absolutely terrible things that you seem to have forgotten. Even his so called compassion seems to be confined to murdering his own son/himself and telling everybody to accept that as some sort of altruistic act or die.

[ippy]

I am not here to judge the actions of God in the bible.
Jesus Christ shows us the will of God and what he wants for mankind.
I believe that it is about seeing the bigger picture and knowing God has worked for the good of all mankind.
No one wants a world full of murderers, rapist, child-abusers. Nonetheless we have them. But thank God they won't be with
us forever and he has the perfect way to separate the evil and the good.


I believe God wants a better life and world for us. We have to trust him and live in that reality.

5

ippy

[Brownie]

Both threads have provoked some interesting responses.  I agree that we cannot judge Biblical accounts by today's standards which is why the questions were difficult to answer, yet many of us tried to answer them as honestly as possible.

I like what Sassy has said above.

[Khatru]

I've enjoyed the responses, and will simply quote part of a line from a Khatru post on a different thread -
are not very subtle evasions. 
As Humph pointed out in Khat's original 'Condemn or Approve' thread, the initial proposition was so skewed and misrepresentative of God's actions as a whole, as to make the whole poll exercise a straw man thread.  I was interested to see whether Khat and others would fall into the very trap that he had tried to set over there - and, by bringing in other details that aren't in the initial proposition, he and several others have done precisely that.  In fact, several seem to be suggesting that they regard the traits listed here as undesirable.

As such, this thread has succeeded in its purpose.

Yes, it has succeeded in showing how you choose to defend acts of genocide as well as the killing of people for numerous and trivial reasons.

I guess that's what comes of having a holy book which contains instructions to kill people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, it has succeeded in showing how you choose to defend acts of genocide as well as the killing of people for numerous and trivial reasons.

I guess that's what comes of having a holy book which contains instructions to kill people.

Doesn't one of Sam Harris's books advocate the use of a nuclear, first-strike? Have you condemned Sam Harris?....and do you now?

[Khatru]

Doesn't one of Sam Harris's books advocate the use of a nuclear, first-strike? Have you condemned Sam Harris?....and do you now?

I've never read Sam Harris but yeah, I don't agree with that so I have no problem condemning that point of view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never read Sam Harris but yeah, I don't agree with that so I have no problem condemning that point of view.

It IS one of your holy books.

[Shaker]

It IS one of your holy books.

Doubt if he has them.

[Brownie]

I've never read Sam Harris but yeah, I don't agree with that so I have no problem condemning that point of view.

Sam Harris is an American neuroscientist who promotes science and secular values, Khatru.

[Khatru]

Sam Harris is an American neuroscientist who promotes science and secular values, Khatru.

Thanks.

I'd heard of Harris and was pretty sure of his vocation - I just haven't read any of his books.

[Brownie]

Me neither, only read about him and the occasional quote on forums.

[jeremyp]

I agree that we cannot judge Biblical accounts by today's standards

Why not?

If God is unchanging, the same moral values must have applied back when he was allegedly slaughtering innocents as apply now.

[jeremyp]

Doesn't one of Sam Harris's books advocate the use of a nuclear, first-strike?

No.

[Rhiannon]

Doesn't one of Sam Harris's books advocate the use of a nuclear, first-strike? Have you condemned Sam Harris?....and do you now?

I've missed something. Sam Harris writes holy books?

[Sassy]

Why not?

If God is unchanging, the same moral values must have applied back when he was allegedly slaughtering innocents as apply now.

You think the same morals today applied back then. You are mistakenly misrepresenting what Brownie is saying...

I agree that we cannot judge Biblical accounts by today's standards

God hasn't changed but the moral values and mankind has.
Hence the changing of man and society means you cannot judge what happened then by todays standards.
God has remained the same throughout. It isn't God but the world and man which is being discussed.


EXAMPLE: Todays laws and society would not allow you to sacrifice your daughter or any person for victory in war.
God does not want and never has wanted those things. He sacrificed his son so mankind could live. But more importantly it was his sons own decision to do it.